FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   >>  
r his practice is the oftquoted caution of Horace, _Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere_. But the seventeenth century was not disposed to continue uninterruptedly the tradition of previous translators. In translated, as in original verse a new era was to begin, acclaimed as such in its own day, and associated like the new poetry, with the names of Denham and Cowley as both poets and critics and with that of Waller as poet. Peculiarly characteristic of the movement was its hostility towards literal translation, a hostility apparent also, as we have seen, in Chapman. "I consider it a vulgar error in translating poets," writes Denham in the preface to his _Destruction of Troy_, "to affect being Fidus Interpres," and again in his lines to Fanshaw: That servile path thou nobly dost decline Of tracing word by word, and line by line. Those are the labored births of slavish brains, Not the effect of poetry but pains; Cheap, vulgar arts, whose narrowness affords No flight for thoughts, but poorly sticks at words. Sprat is anxious to claim for Cowley much of the credit for introducing "this way of leaving verbal translations and chiefly regarding the sense and genius of the author," which "was scarce heard of in England before this present age."[394] Why Chapman and later translators should have fixed upon extreme literalness as the besetting fault of their predecessors and contemporaries, it is hard to see. It is true that the recognition of the desirability of faithfulness to the original was the most distinctive contribution that sixteenth-century critics made to the theory of translation, but this principle was largely associated with prose renderings of a different type from that now under discussion. If, like Denham, one excludes "matters of fact and matters of faith," the body of translation which remains is scarcely distinguished by slavish adherence to the letter. As a matter of fact, however, sixteenth-century translation was obviously an unfamiliar field to most seventeenth-century commentators, and although their generalizations include all who have gone before them, their illustrations are usually drawn from the early part of their own century. Ben Jonson, whose translation of Horace's _Art of Poetry_ is cited by Dryden as an example of "metaphrase, or turning an author word by word and line by line from one language to another,"[395] is perhaps largely responsible for the mistaken impr
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   >>  



Top keywords:

translation

 

century

 

Denham

 

Cowley

 

critics

 

author

 

vulgar

 

matters

 

largely

 

slavish


poetry

 

Chapman

 

sixteenth

 

hostility

 

original

 

Horace

 

translators

 

seventeenth

 

present

 

theory


renderings

 
England
 

principle

 

contribution

 

recognition

 

desirability

 
predecessors
 
contemporaries
 
faithfulness
 
scarce

extreme

 

literalness

 

besetting

 

distinctive

 

matter

 
Jonson
 
Poetry
 

illustrations

 

Dryden

 

responsible


mistaken

 

metaphrase

 

turning

 

language

 
remains
 

scarcely

 

distinguished

 
adherence
 

discussion

 

excludes